Last week, I had a post discussing an article which favored the prosecution of Professor Julian P. Heicklen for jury tampering. Today, Professor Paul Butler, a long time advocate of jury nullifcation in cases involving low-level non-violent drug offenses, has written an Op-Ed in the New York Times defending the actions of Professor Heicklen. As some may recall, Professor Heicklen is being prosecuted for jury tampering because he stood outside a federal courthouse in New York handing out pamphlets with the following language.
The judge will instruct the jury that it must uphold the law as he gives it. He will be lying. The jury must judge the law as well as the facts.
Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of the government. It is not the duty of the jury to uphold the law. It is the jury's duty to see that justice is done....
Once on a jury, must I use the law as given by the judge, even if I think it's a bad law, or wrongly applied?
The answer is "No. You are free to vote on the verdict according to your conscience."
Comments